LSC-Virgo Burst Analysis Working Group


Burst Group Home
ExtTrig Home
CBC Group Home
LSC, LIGO, Virgo


'How-to' docs
[2008, 2007, earlier]
Talks/Posters [pre-wiki]
Paper plans
White papers


Analysis projects
Old notebook [General, S2, S3, S4, S5]
Virgo workarea
External collabs


Main review page

Review Committee Meeting Wednesday 8 March 2006 08:00 PST / 11:00 EST

Minutes: Wednesday 8 March 2006 08:00 PST / 11:00 EST

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Discuss code review of modified WaveBurst [ HTML ]
  2. Discuss final results of the S4 untriggered search [ HTML ]

Contact Info

AccuConference teleconferencing service:
   Phone: 1-800-704-9896, participant code: 038621#
   International callers ++1-404-920-6472 with same code


  1. Modifications to WaveBurst
    • Keith described various changes to waveburst. Code review was reassuring. There are just a couple of things remaining to be checked.
    • Adoption of Meyer wavelets: this is simply to get longer wavelets, not significantly different in properties.
    • S4 and S5 versions of waveburst were run on S5 data until 1 Jan. Essentially the same loud triggers resulted.
  2. S4 search results
    • Including the 28 additional waveburst jobs had the effect that one more event was seen that passes all cuts except for the corrpower gamma cut.
    • Shourov has run a Q-scan on this event. Nothing obvious.
    • This event occurred 40 seconds before lockloss in livingston. Blamed on microseism. Plausible that IFO had bad behaviour prior to lock loss.
    • Event has frequency of 69 Hz and it long-lasting (0.6s). Likely due to fluctuations in the 60 Hz line.
    • Would be useful to see waveburst scalograms (for both the S4 and the S5 waveburst versions) of this event.
    • New MDC results: H1 hrss vs. H2 hrss scatter plot for MDCs shows a bias away from the H1 hrss = H2 hrss line. This is expected since the new MDCs are with V4 calibration while the analysis is done with V3 calibration.
    • New efficiency curves: 50% values of hrss typically a few percent worse than before. As expected. 90% values can show a greater difference than from previous due to the additional veto. (Veto causes efficiency curve to asymptote to an efficiency below unity.)
    • Need to include corrections in values accounting for (i) errors in the fit, (ii) systematic errors (calibration). These numbers need to be final.
    • Paper will include the 6ms gaussian efficiency curve for illustration but will not have a corresponding exclusion curve.
$Id: minutes-2006-03-08.html,v 1.2 2006/03/08 17:24:16 jolien Exp $